Davis v. Mann

Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court which was one of a series of cases decided in 1964 that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.wikipedia
55 Related Articles

Henry Howell

Henry E. Howell, Jr.
David J. Mays and Robert McIlwaine advocated on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Edmund D. Campbell and Henry E. Howell, Jr. advocated on behalf of the plaintiff Northern Virginia legislators. Voters from Norfolk, Virginia represented by Henry E. Howell, Jr. were permitted to intervene as plaintiffs.
In 1963, after Howell and Arlington's Edmund D. Campbell won the Davis v. Mann redistricting case, Norfolk's voters elected Howell along with White and Robert to represent them in what had become District 50.

David J. Mays

Mays
David J. Mays and Robert McIlwaine advocated on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Edmund D. Campbell and Henry E. Howell, Jr. advocated on behalf of the plaintiff Northern Virginia legislators.
He argued (and lost) Davis v. Mann in 1953 and the following year unsuccessfully defended Virginia's legislative reapportionment before the Virginia Supreme Court in Wilkins v. Davis.

Robert McIlwaine

David J. Mays and Robert McIlwaine advocated on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Edmund D. Campbell and Henry E. Howell, Jr. advocated on behalf of the plaintiff Northern Virginia legislators.
These cases included disputes about school desegregation, redistricting (including Davis v. Mann), and most notably Loving v. Virginia, in which he unsuccessfully sought to defend before the Supreme Court Virginia's laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Edmund D. Campbell

David J. Mays and Robert McIlwaine advocated on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Edmund D. Campbell and Henry E. Howell, Jr. advocated on behalf of the plaintiff Northern Virginia legislators. Voters from Arlington County and Fairfax County, Virginia represented by Edmund D. Campbell challenged the apportionment of the Virginia General Assembly.
The United States Supreme Court in Davis v. Mann agreed, leading to the famous "one man, one vote" rationale.

C. Harrison Mann

Hank MannHarrison Mann
Mann was the named plaintiff in the reapportionment case Davis v. Mann, concerning the reapportionment after the 1960 census and during Virginia's Massive Resistance crisis (although Arlington acceded to a court order in 1959).

Supreme Court of the United States

United States Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme CourtSupreme Court
Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court which was one of a series of cases decided in 1964 that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.

State legislature (United States)

state legislaturestate legislaturesstate legislator
Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court which was one of a series of cases decided in 1964 that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.

Reynolds v. Sims

1964 "one man, one vote" readingone man, one vote" decisionone-man, one-vote
The Supreme Court issued the opinion in this case along with Reynolds v. Sims and cites that the opinion.

Arlington County, Virginia

Arlington, VirginiaArlingtonArlington County
Voters from Arlington County and Fairfax County, Virginia represented by Edmund D. Campbell challenged the apportionment of the Virginia General Assembly.

Fairfax County, Virginia

Fairfax CountyFairfaxFairfax County, VA
Voters from Arlington County and Fairfax County, Virginia represented by Edmund D. Campbell challenged the apportionment of the Virginia General Assembly.

Virginia

Commonwealth of VirginiaVAState of Virginia
Voters from Arlington County and Fairfax County, Virginia represented by Edmund D. Campbell challenged the apportionment of the Virginia General Assembly.

Norfolk, Virginia

NorfolkNorfolk, VANorfolk City
Voters from Norfolk, Virginia represented by Henry E. Howell, Jr. were permitted to intervene as plaintiffs.

Solicitor general

Solicitor-GeneralSolicitor General of the United StatesAdditional Solicitor General
On appeal, the United States (represented by Solicitor General Archibald Cox) intervened as amicus curiae to support the appellees.

Archibald Cox

A CoxArchibald Cox Jr.Cox
On appeal, the United States (represented by Solicitor General Archibald Cox) intervened as amicus curiae to support the appellees.

Baker v. Carr

Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court went further in order to correct what seemed to it to be egregious examples of malapportionment which were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government.

Republic

constitutional republicrepublicsrepublican form of government
Having already overturned its ruling that redistricting was a purely political question in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the Court went further in order to correct what seemed to it to be egregious examples of malapportionment which were serious enough to undermine the premises underlying republican government.

Potter Stewart

StewartJustice StewartJustice Potter Stewart
Justice Potter Stewart issued a concurrence, in which he argued that wide disparities in population could be constitutional if the Commonwealth could articulate non-discriminatory reasons, but held that the Commonwealth could advance "no rational basis for the disfavoring of Arlington, Fairfax and Norfolk."

John Marshall Harlan (1899–1971)

John Marshall Harlan IIJustice HarlanHarlan
Justice John Marshall Harlan II reiterated and adopted his dissent in Reynolds v. Sims.